In the recent General Conference, Elder Wakolo of the Seventy made the following statement:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a wedge, to divide families, but a bridge to unite them eternally. We must insure that our discipleship reflects the Savior’s patience, His gentleness, and His perfect love.
I’m going to talk about the first sentence for a while — whether being LDS or being in the Church is more like a wedge or a bridge for a marriage — then circle back around to the second sentence. And let’s be clear: This is a serious discussion. Marriage can be a wonderful thing, but it can also turn ugly. The Church can provide common ground and a good moral foundation for a newly married couple to grow their marriage, and for many Mormon marriages this leads to a happy lifetime marriage. You can’t argue with success.
But the Church can put pressure on a marriage that (to stick with the metaphor) weakens the bridge or even leads to collapse. I’m not going to dwell on various scenarios that come to threaten the marital bridge — it could be tithing and financial stress, it could be the time commitment outside the home of a major calling, it could be political differences the emerge over time. I’m just going to look at the big one: when one half of a couple draws away from the Church or flat out does a complete exit.
Of course, that’s the flip side of an LDS conversion where one-half of a couple joins the Church and the other spouse delays or simply demurs. The standard LDS response is to celebrate the new convert and support him or her, hoping (expecting?) that the conversion will strengthen their existing marriage. The non-LDS spouse is generally treated very well if they come to activities or attend LDS services. Sure, that upbeat response may be rooted in the hope that the non-LDS spouse will, sooner or later, join the Church. But even in long-term scenarios, the non-LDS spouse is often very welcome. I know where callings have been given to and accepted by the non-LDS spouse in such a scenario. A half-LDS marriage can flourish, and positive support from the ward community certainly helps that happen.
Why is it so often different when H or W in an existing Mormon marriage draws away from the Church? It doesn’t have to be the case, but often and even generally an ex-LDS spouse is perceived and treated much differently than a not-yet LDS spouse in a half-LDS marriage. I think that’s unfortunate. But honestly, that’s a Church or ward problem. I’m focusing on “the one,” the LDS H or W. What if you’re the LDS half of what is now a half-LDS marriage?
Quick caveat: I’m not talking about cases where H gambles away the house on a weekend spree in Vegas or when W makes some music with her yoga instructor, and Church teachings or counsel complicates the resulting marital mess. I’m just talking about a decent Mormon marriage where H or W just looks in the mirror one day and says, “Nope, I can’t do this anymore.” If there is then a heart-to-heart with W or H, that still-LDS spouse is likely to think, “Whoa, I didn’t sign up for this. What does this mean? What do I do now?”
For the still-LDS spouse, here’s an answer from Paul the Apostle. What works in the world of 50 AD does not always fit in the 21st century, but in this case I think his counsel in 1 Corinthians 7 is helpful, probably more helpful than what you might hear in LDS circles or what your bishop might tell you. Paul says,
To the rest I say — I and not the Lord — that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (1 Cor. 7:12-13, NRSV)
Paul is clear and direct: unbelief is not a cause for divorce. Don’t blow up the marital bridge because H or W loses their commitment to the Church or even does a formal exit. And note that he treats both H and W equally and symmetrically. But he doesn’t stop there, he continues with a theological basis for that advice. And this is important in an LDS context, where the still-LDS spouse may think to themselves, “What about my eternal marriage? What about my temple blessings?” or ponder a similar doctrinal and personal concern.
Paul continues,
For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:14, NRSV)
This is very encouraging. I’ve even come up with a name for this: the doctrine that One is Enough. In the LDS context, it is that if you are a good LDS H or W, your unbelieving W or H will somehow receive the benefit of your faith and good works. Paul even extends that general idea to the children of the marriage.
Now if you are a serious reader of theology, you will recognize this as similar to the Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merit, accumulated by Jesus and lauded saints, to be dispensed for the benefit of the merely faithful here on Earth. But Paul’s One is Enough view operates simply within the marriage. Faithful H sanctifies the unbelieving W and faithful W sanctifies unbelieving H.
So if you are the faithful LDS H or W in this scenario, ignore what your LDS friends or even LDS bishop might tell you to the contrary. Paul says: Don’t get a divorce. Your LDS faithfulness will bless the unbelieving spouse. Sure, it’s a challenge, but be like a Marine: Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
Which brings us back to Elder Wakolo’s second sentence: “We must insure that our discipleship reflects the Savior’s patience, His gentleness, and His perfect love.” Patience, gentleness, and love is not as punchy as improvise, adapt, and overcome, but probably fits better in a marriage scenario.
I’ve got no prompts for this. Just the advice that if the Church, or specifically being a half-LDS marriage in the Church, becomes a wedge and not a bridge in a marriage, you might take Paul’s doctrine of One is Enough to heart. Exercise patience, gentleness, and love, as Elder Wakolo suggests.
.
Wheat & Tares 
I know multiple couples where one of the 2 ends up leaving and the still believing spouse demands and gets a divorce right away (from the couples I know it was pretty much instantaneous). One of my good friends was even willing to go full PIMO to keep the marriage alive, go to church, hold a calling, etc. just didn’t believe it anymore and that was not good enough for his then wife. I know one couple where one left, then the other spouse left a year later. I only know one couple where one has left and one has stayed in the church, that is still married, and that is mostly because the believing spouse has become extremely nuanced in their relationship with the church.
I don’t know why this is the case, why the believing party takes their spouse leaving the church as a massive betrayal that demands instant divorce, but that seems to be a pretty common occurrence in my social circle.
I can say as a single person who lives in Utah who has left the church I avoid dating active mormons, since in my experience they will eventually give you an ultimatum of going back to church with them.
When my wife and I were sealed, the sealer told her “You cannot be exalted without him and he cannot be exalted without you.” She absolutely believed that and that inserted a wedge between us from the start, even though I have remained active in the Church. From her perspective, any screw up on my part endangered her exaltation, which was a huge burden for me to bear. I suppose that my beliefs have become more nuanced over time, but not that much. I’m from a pro-civil rights household of the pre-1978 era, so I was introduced to nuance at a young age. But I became more open about the nuance over time and she once told me flat out “If your not going to get me to the Celestial Kingdom, tell me now so I can find somebody who will.” Well, I’m not going to get her into the Celestial Kingdom, and sometimes I feel a little guilty about not setting her free. But if you ask my kids, they will tell you I did the right thing.
I think part of the problem starts even before couples are married. There is just SO much emphasis on how horrible it might be if you marry outside the church taught to the YW. I can’t speak for what the young men get taught, but I remember lesson after lesson after lesson about how we HAD to have a temple marriage in order to be happy. One had one girl in tears because her father was not a member and the idiot teacher was saying how two people could not possibly love each other unless they were married in the temple. And how temple marriage ALWAYS led to a loving and happy life. I was sitting there ready to slug her in her lying gut, I was so angry about her living in lala land because my temple married parents did not show any love and were certainly not happy. This girl with the part member family was just sitting there sobbing, while other girls in the class were trying to comfort her and the stupid teacher didn’t even realize how utterly offensive her lesson was. But the lessons on the importance of temple marriage continued. Being married to someone who was not a believing member was painted as the worst possible outcome. No, sorry, but being temple married to a spouse who beats you is so much worse than being married to a kind unbeliever. It was not ever about how people treated each other, only ever about what they thought about religion. It was not ever about how to have a loving marriage, only the importance of thinking the same about the church. It was about surface things like, you needed to be the same race and culture and it was best to marry a return missionary. It wasn’t even so deep as to ask if he lives what he says he believes. Nope, membership in the church and outward appearances.
So, when the kind loving man decides he no longer believes, the wife feels so lied to. She can’t even think he might have changed his mind for very good reasons. Nope. He is not the kind of husband she was taught is possible to have a happy life with. He is still the same kind loving person he has always been, but he does not fit the only thing she was taught was important—believing the church is true.
When children are taught that life is black and white and surface stuff like attending church is all that is important, why are we even surprised that they can’t see anything but black and white?
Our church actually teaches that God loves us on the condition that we are good Mormons. And do I really need to quote our just past prophet? So, then why would we be surprised when a spouse holds to those exact same conditions about loving their spouse? “If you are not on the covenant path, then God doesn’t love you,” turns into “we as humans can also stop loving a person if they leave that path.”
The church teaches this in so many ways.
I appreciate these thoughts, and the gospel-as-a-bridge-not-a-wedge visualization. Yes, gospel living should be a blessing all the way around, and the counsel to love and forgive one’s neighbor also encompasses one’s husband or wife. There are always many factors at play in a marital relationship, and some of those factors might properly suggest or require a separation sometimes — but church membership should always be a blessing.
Just as we allow for reasonable accommodations in the workplace, we can allow for reasonable accommodations in our relationships.